Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: URGENT - temporary speed restriction
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
nmirza
Hi,

I have an interim trial date tomorrow, so would appreciate a speedy response.

I read on another site that if you are caught speeding in a temporary speed restriction, then your license is non-endorsable unless it was on a motorway. Is this true? What about motorway slip roads?

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/R...age/The_Law.htm

All help is greatly appreciated.

nmirza
firefly
The Speed Trap Bible website is hopelessly out-of-date: pay no heed to it.  I can assure you that exceeding a temporary limit is an endorsable offence.

What is the thrust of your defence?  If it's the above, forget it.
andy_foster
Exceeding a temporary speed limit is covered by a different law than other speed limits. Many years ago, it was non-endorsable. That has now changed.
The urban myth is perpetuated because everyone wants it to still be true.
nmirza
QUOTE (firefly)
The Speed Trap Bible website is hopelessly out-of-date: pay no heed to it.  I can assure you that exceeding a temporary limit is an endorsable offence.

What is the thrust of your defence?  If it's the above, forget it.


The thrust of my defence is that I was doing 62 in what is normally a 70mph zone and I have no recollection of seeing speed restriction signs saying that it was 40mph. Nor were any visible in the pictures.
firefly
Just because you have no recollection of it, doesn't mean there weren't 40mph signs.  You absolutely have to have proof that the signs were either not there, not lit (if it was dark), non-prescribed etc etc.

If you go to court and say, "I didn't see any signs" then you will be hung out to dry.  :roll:   It's very important you check up on the signage before going to court.  

I don't know what an interim court date is.  Anyone?
andy_foster
As it's a Scottish case, if you don't know, I doubt that anyone else will.

For a temporary restriction, wouldn't th prosecution have to produce evidence that the signs were there? <cough> Folly Bottom </cough>
nmirza
QUOTE (andy_foster)
As it's a Scottish case, if you don't know, I doubt that anyone else will.

For a temporary restriction, wouldn't th prosecution have to produce evidence that the signs were there? <cough> Folly Bottom </cough>


I don't know what Folly Bottom is but that is precisely my argument - that they need to prove that they were there.
nmirza
Hah! Just found out about  Folly Bottom. How do i mention this in court? Can I simply print out a webpage?
firefly
confused1.gif

Please don't open new threads for existing cases; it can be very frustrating, and wastes time.

QUOTE (andy_foster)
For a temporary restriction, wouldn't th prosecution have to produce evidence that the signs were there? <cough> Folly Bottom </cough>

Maybe, but since the issue hasn't been raised beforehand then I fear the worst.  Turning up at court with a print out from the internet - coupled with a "you have to prove the temporary limit signage" type approach will, I fancy, be met with contempt.  In my humble opinion, of course.
nmirza
QUOTE (firefly)
confused1.gif

Please don't open new threads for existing cases; it can be very frustrating, and wastes time.

QUOTE (andy_foster)
For a temporary restriction, wouldn't th prosecution have to produce evidence that the signs were there? <cough> Folly Bottom </cough>

Maybe, but since the issue hasn't been raised beforehand then I fear the worst.  Turning up at court with a print out from the internet - coupled with a "you have to prove the temporary limit signage" type approach will, I fancy, be met with contempt.  In my humble opinion, of course.


I'm not sure I understand the bit about it not being raised before. I perhaps should have mentioned that I had written a response to the NIP citing that there were no signs visible on that journey.
jeffreyarcher
Much that has to be proved by the prosecution in England can just be inferred in Scottish courts. Whether that would stretch to the provision of required prescribed signs, I don't know.
Further, it is common for Scottish Executive trunk road temporary speed limit orders themselves to state that the limit only applies when and where the requisite signs are provided, which would appear to strengthen the requirement for proof.
Nonetheless, if you were to challenge the scammer operator, he would just lie as usual, and say the signs were O.K.
Therefore, you require something to back your case up.
Unfortunately, you couldn't even be arsed to do what you were told to do when you came here before.
Nor could you be arsed typing up the details as requested by Mrs. Miggins.
Additionally, you couldn't even be arsed looking out your old thread.
Then you have the audacity to post 'urgent' on your new thread.
We don't have a magic effortless wand. If you can't be arsed doing what is required, you are not going to win.
Whilst printing out an article about Folly Bottom may be attractively easy, as it requires absolutely no effort on your part, it proves absolutely nothing about your case.
And BTW, don't you mean an intermediate diet?
Or was there just to much effort involved in typing up such a big word?
If it's an internediate diet, no discussion of the case issues will take place. Both parties will just be asked if they are ready for trial.
BTW, is it the sheriff court or the district court?

All of that said, if they intend running with, "contrary to thte South East Unit Trunk Roads Area (Temporary Prohibitions of Traffic, Temporary Prohibitions of overtaking and temporary speed restrictions) Order," I think you should (if you can be arsed) get a copy of that order from the Scottish Executive Trunk Roads Network Management, because Glasgow is in the South-West area wink.gif.
It should be great fun asking the fiscal to point out the relevent bit.
viper
laugh.gif no recollection  :lol:
firefly
jeffrey, well put.  :D

nmirza, capiche?
nmirza
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Much that has to be proved by the prosecution in England can just be inferred in Scottish courts. Whether that would stretch to the provision of required prescribed signs, I don't know.
Further, it is common for Scottish Executive trunk road temporary speed limit orders themselves to state that the limit only applies when and where the requisite signs are provided, which would appear to strengthen the requirement for proof.
Nonetheless, if you were to challenge the scammer operator, he would just lie as usual, and say the signs were O.K.
Therefore, you require something to back your case up.
Unfortunately, you couldn't even be arsed to do what you were told to do when you came here before.
Nor could you be arsed typing up the details as requested by Mrs. Miggins.
Additionally, you couldn't even be arsed looking out your old thread.
Then you have the audacity to post 'urgent' on your new thread.
We don't have a magic effortless wand. If you can't be arsed doing what is required, you are not going to win.
Whilst printing out an article about Folly Bottom may be attractively easy, as it requires absolutely no effort on your part, it proves absolutely nothing about your case.
And BTW, don't you mean an intermediate diet?
Or was there just to much effort involved in typing up such a big word?
If it's an internediate diet, no discussion of the case issues will take place. Both parties will just be asked if they are ready for trial.
BTW, is it the sheriff court or the district court?

All of that said, if they intend running with, "contrary to thte South East Unit Trunk Roads Area (Temporary Prohibitions of Traffic, Temporary Prohibitions of overtaking and temporary speed restrictions) Order," I think you should (if you can be arsed) get a copy of that order from the Scottish Executive Trunk Roads Network Management, because Glasgow is in the South-West area wink.gif.
It should be great fun asking the fiscal to point out the relevent bit.


I love you, too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.